Wrestling With Polyandry

[Abulafia]

I'm sorry...but I'm all confused. Abulafia said, "Aaron Milavec has done some good research into the meaning of "the cosmic or worldly mystery of the church" and very much refutes the assertion that it had anything to do with polygamy (or polyandry..)

I don't think Milavec mentioned anything about polygamy or polyandry so how is it that it's "very much" refuted? I guess I'm not following along very well, maybe it's the way he structured his sentences that I'm not grasping what is being said. He claims it refuted and agrees with Milavec but that it's all wild speculation. So what did Milavec disprove exactly or what is the wild speculation? Sorry...just trying to follow along.

What I'm arguing Hannah, is that we actually don't know what 'cosmic or worldly mystery of the church' actually meant to the community of the Didache. Milavec feels that the comparison with Ephesians 5:23 is unwarranted. Ephesians 5:23 refers to a spiritual marriage between Christ and the Church ~ whereby Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the wife. Ephesians 5:23 does not refer to polygamy, or sister wives, or spiritual marriage between celibates.

When we take 1 Corinthians 7 as a whole, it is apparent that Paul believed in celibacy (whether he was widowed or not). With the apocalyptic worldview where the end was coming soon, this would make sense.

I think it is also useful to bear in mind marriage customs of the time. The Bridegroom's father would pick a bride. The couple would become betrothed, yet the marriage would not be consummated. The woman/virgin would continue to live with her parents, and the man would live with his family. Once the couple were married, then the woman would go and live with her husband in his father's house.

For Galilean Jews, this would have been their marriage pattern. This is what Jesus, at least, would have been familiar with, whilst also recognising that leaders like Herod (who was not highly regarded by the Galilean population) might have a different set of morals and practices.

There is no evidence that polygamy or polyandry was a part of the early church. That the later Epistles (that were not Pauline) mention that local leaders within the communities be the husband of one wife, does not mean that Prophets could be married to two. That is an argument from silence.

There is also good evidence that women could travel the ancient world, could hold land, position, and trade with others, without needing a man around. (I need to dig out my book by Wayne Meeks for specific details on that, but the evidence is within the texts of the NT itself)

There was a group of widows that chose to remain single. As far as I understand, we aren't told about their domestic arrangements, and there may have been some that chose to live with fellow celibates, but their marriage would have been to the church and not to each other.

I'm very interested in this area, and appreciate the links you have given in this thread and in one I found from 2010.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Abulafia

[juliann]

 

There is no evidence that polygamy or polyandry was a part of the early church. That the later Epistles (that were not Pauline) mention that local leaders within the communities be the husband of one wife, does not mean that Prophets could be married to two. That is an argument from silence.

 

I wonder though...there was contemporary Jewish polygamy and there would have been converts....

[volgadon]

I wonder though...there was contemporary Jewish polygamy and there would have been converts....

 

It wasn't all that common, though.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Abulanfia and Juliann, thanks for the insights. It is a fascinating subject probably because there is a lot that can't be proven...somewhat of a mystery...just like Joseph Smith and what he was doing.

 

Here are some proof text from Modern-day Born-Again Evangelical Christian Polygamist that polygamy was in the New Testament as well. Maybe someone who understands Greek can check to see if their argument is valid.

 

TruthBearer.org

Continuing the Reformation…

Bringing Christian Polygamny to the Church

http://www.truthbearer.org/truth-tracts/truth-and-paradox/9/

 

The Elders, Bishops, and Deacons Trap

The most perplexing trap that devils will use to advance the plot of the wicked paradox is in the reference to "one wife" in Titus and 1_Timothy. But as usual, once the LIGHT of the Scripture comes shining through, the wickedness thereof is instantly revealed. Praise the LORD! 

In our English language, Titus 1:5c-7: "ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker..."

In 1_Timothy 3:2: "A bishop must be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"...

In 1_Timothy 3:12: "Let the deacons be the husbands of ONE WIFE, ruling their children and their own houses well."

When one consults STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE, an amazing piece of evidence becomes revealed. In most cases, the word for ONE in the Greek is "heis" (hice), meaning the primary numeral "1". Yet, in the references to "ONE WIFE", the Greek word for ONE is not that word for the primary numeral "1". Indeed, in those three cases, ONE is "mia" (mee'-ah), meaning "one" or "first".

While some will try to confuse by the fact that STRONG'S indicates that "mia" (mee'-ah) is a "feminine of" "heis" (hice), let those confusers be reminded that STRONG's is more specific. It says that it is an "IRREGULAR feminine". Quite a different thing indeed! Despite such wicked confusion, however, a deeper investigation sheds still more LIGHT through the darkness. Alleluia!

That word "mia" (mee'-ah), meaning "first", is the exact same word for FIRST in John 20:19, Acts 20:7, and 1_Corinthians 16:2. All three of these verses refer to "the FIRST day of the week". Indeed, we can see this word for "FIRST" as meaning, "The position-number-one of a sequence". For example, the FIRST day of the week is the Day-number-one of the sequence of seven days in a week. Thus, even simpler, "the FIRST day of the week" can be seen as "the day-number-one of the week", which, of course, is Sunday.

Thus, because we can see that Greek word "mia" (mee'-ah) in that way, it also my be applied to those references to "ONE WIFE". That is, instead, it can thus be seen as "FIRST wife", or as "Wife-number-one" of a sequence.

So, it can thus be seen that elders, bishops, and deacons must be "the husband of FIRST wife", of their "wife-number-one" of a sequence. And indeed, that would certainly be absolutely fundamental to the principles in determining adultery!

A TRUE GODLY man is not to deal treacherously with the "wife of his youth", his FIRST wife, the wife-number-one! The "judgment of the LORD" in Exodus 21:10 established that very clearly. Therefore, indeed, an elder, a bishop, a deacon would and should certainly be required to live up to that "judgment of the LORD" in Exodus 21:10. Indeed, because they must be holy, they must certainly be still so loving, so blessing, and so edifying their FIRST wife, the "wife of thy youth", the wife with whom they first learned how to be such a TRUE GODLY (small-L) lord! Yes, indeed, such (small-L) lords absolutely must follow the example of the (capital-L) Lord, thus loving their wives, absolutely including their FIRST wives, "as Christ also loved, as Christ also loved, as Christ also loved" the churches.

(As well, I could delve into the fact that it is that word "FIRST" also in the translation of "ONE" in "ONE FLESH", as in 1_Corinthians 6:16; but, as I have previously explained that unto you, and so as to now avoid confusion, I spare you...) As for those who would refuse to see this revelation of "FIRST wife", then let them consider the following. Why did Paul not just say that elders, bishops, and deacons must not commit adultery? It is because, indeed, the TRUE meaning of adultery establishes the possibility of more than one wife. Further, let such consider what one TRUE GODLY man's wife at one time of allowance (that it may be for your edification herein) and what another TRUE GODLY man at another time have both intimated to me separately. If it is true that Paul only specified ONE single wife for elders, bishops, and deacons, does that not still prove that OTHER Christian men were authorized to marry, and indeed were marrying, more than ONE wife? Indeed, why did Paul not simply forbid adultery instead of saying "ONE WIFE"? It was establishing a holy requirement. That holy requirement was not about having ONE single wife but about being the husband of one's FIRST wife, as according to the "Judgment of the LORD" in Exodus 21:10. Truly, the specification was a requirement to holiness without error!

Thus, either way one looks at it, it is clear as to the TRUTH on this matter of "ONE WIFE" of elders, bishops, and deacons. Even if one rejects the "FIRST wife" understanding of the meaning of "ONE WIFE", even the idea of separating specific "church leaders" from other Christian men still confirms that such others were not prevented from loving, blessing, and edifying more than ONE WIFE. Thus, again, the trap of the wicked, incorrect manmade doctrine of so-called "adultery" (as opposed to TRUE adultery) has been exposed. Yes, the LIGHT has pierced the darkness. And, unto the TRUE Children of the LORD, I say, quoting from 1_Peter 2:9e: "ye should shew forth the praises of him ((the LORD)) who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous LIGHT."

 

Pasted from <http://www.truthbearer.org/truth-tracts/truth-and-paradox/9/>

 

 

Bible Exegesis

 

One Wife

 

Titus 1:6 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 --- "One wife" --- mia is the Greek word from which the word, one, was translated in those passages. Yet, it can also be translated as first, just as it is, for example, so translated in the phrases, "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7.

Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow's "one man" is not mia but the Greek word "heis", meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of "first".

There is so much more to this particular matter here than that which this "sound-bite" here can address. The organization of TruthBearer.org provides a number of detailed articles on this issue, a couple of which include

Breaking Past the ONE WIFE Barrier

and

The Elders, Bishops, and Deacons Trap

  (Ch.9 of "The Truth and the Paradox").

The fact is, no one can INSIST that these three "one wife" verses can NOT be instead translated as "first wife", which makes more sense to translate those verses as "first wife" anyway.

 

Pasted from <http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/one-wife/>

 

Taken from a Christian Polygamist site

 

Once again the anti polygyny Christians have to invent some imaginary principle because they are so bereft of clear Scriptural support for their monogamy only position. And of course this argument must ignore the alternative interpretations that Paul was encouraging the bishops and deacons to have at least one wife as a minimum or not to have divorced the first wife.

 

Pasted from <http://www.biblepolygamy.com/emulatebishopsdeacons.htm>

 

http://www.truthbearer.org/read-first/exegesis/

One Wife argument

 

 

Pasted from <http://www.truthbearer.org/read-first/exegesis/>

1. Titus 1:6 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 --- "One wife" --- mia is the Greek word (for the word, one, in those passages) may also be translated as first, as it is, for example so translated in the phrases, "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7. Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow's "one man" is not mia but the Greek word "heis", meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of "first". (There is so much more to this particular matter here than that which this "sound-bite" here can address, but is addressed throughout various places throughout this web-site. The fact is, no one can INSIST that these three "one wife" verses can NOT be instead translated as "first wife", which makes more sense to translate those verses as "first wife" anyway.)
2. Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment against Adultery in Exodus 20:14.
3. Malachi 2:14-15 --- "wife of thy youth" is a man's first wife, the wife with whom he grew and learned how to so love, bless, and edify any wife.

[Abulafia]

I agree with Volgadon on this.   The bride price and divorce laws protected women from polygamy without approval.  The polygamous ways of the powerful and wealthy (and even some of the upper middle classes) were most likely tolerated rather than approved of amongst 'ordinary' people, such as the farmers, artisans and fishermen that Jesus associated with in the Galilean region. 

 

The Damascus Document (and the Temple Scroll) formally disapproves of polygamy, indicating that there were branches of Judaism for whom the practice was seen as an aberration of the Law.  (I can link to the quotes if you are interested Hannah)

Interestingly Jesus is quoted by both Mark, and the (more Jewish) Matthew as setting monogamy as the standard form of marriage.
 

 

19 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

 

What is interesting is that Jesus here is portrayed as referring to a scripture in Genesis which includes a gloss that changes the text to a monogamous relationship, suggesting that he is anti-polygamy.   Those at Qumran did the same I believe as did Paul in his genuine letters.

Many of the early church fathers also come out as anti-polygamy, including Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr (quote below), all of whom represent quite a wide spread of early christian beliefs and communities.

 

"If, then, the teaching of the prophets and of Himself moves you, it is better for you [followers of Judaism] to follow God than your imprudent and blind masters, who even till this time permit each man to have four or five wives; and if any one see a beautiful woman and desire to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob called Israel, and of the other patriarchs, and maintain that it is not wrong to do such things; for they are miserably ignorant in this matter." (Dialogue With Trypho, 134)

 

I just think that if you are looking for justification for polygamy (I don't think there is any for polyandry) then you are better looking to Mosiah and to the Old Testament Kings and rulers, but trying to find justification in early christianity is going to be difficult..

Edited December 3, 2013 by Abulafia

[mercyngrace]

I agree with Volgadon on this.   The bride price and divorce laws protected women from polygamy without approval.  The polygamous ways of the powerful and wealthy (and even some of the upper middle classes) were most likely tolerated rather than approved of amongst 'ordinary' people, such as the farmers, artisans and fishermen that Jesus associated with in the Galilean region. 

 

The Damascus Document (and the Temple Scroll) formally disapproves of polygamy, indicating that there were branches of Judaism for whom the practice was seen as an aberration of the Law.  (I can link to the quotes if you are interested Hannah)

 

 

Would you please link some of these quotes or point me in the right direction for finding them?

 

I'd love to do some research on this...

 

Thanks!

Cate

[Abulafia]

One book of interest might be 
 

Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism

Jonathan Klawans, OUP
Published 11/2000

Klawans outlines an exegesis of Isaiah 24:17 in  the Damascus Document  (date in 2nd or early 1st century BCE) (MS A)IV:19-V:1.
 

(19)...."The builders of the barrier." who walked after sw- the sw is the preacher (20) of whom it is said, "they shall surely preach" [Micah2:6] - are caught by two [snares].  By unchastity, [namely,] taking (21) two wives in their lives, while the foundation of creation is "male and female he created them" [Gen. 1:27]

 

 

(V:1) And those who entered [Noah's] ark went two by two into the ark.

 

 

 

Klawans points out that unchastity (from the text) appears to be pointing towards polygamy, and remarriage after divorce.

These are seen as 'defiling the sanctuary'.

(See also Yadin, The Temple Scroll, vol. 1, pp. 353-357 vol II, p258; and Fitzmyer, "Divorce" p108 also Schechter, Fragments of a Zadokite Work, p XVII, ef p XXXVI, VII, n.3)

Also:

Found this pdf online.  Haven't finished reading it yet, but it looks interesting.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/Qumran%20Divorce.pdf
 

[Abulafia]

The pdf file I linked to is by D. Instone Brewer and is actually well worth a read.  (just finished it)

He has written a book called:

Divorce And Remarriage In The Bible [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002]

Here's a relevant quote -

 

"A move towards monogamy started very early, as evidenced by a gloss in the Septuagint and other early versions at Genesis 2:24, which read 'and they two shall become one flesh.' The word 'two' is not present in the Masoretic text, but it is found very widely in ancient versions. This gloss was included in the text when Jesus and Paul cited it. Although this gloss was widespread, it did not cause the Hebrew text to be changed. Even at Qumran, when they were amassing arguments against polygamy (see below), the text was not quoted in this form, and there is no example of the Hebrew text being quoted with the word 'two' in it. It appears that this gloss was a very common addition to the text, and that it was recognized as a comment on the text rather than a variant of it. This means that the purpose of the addition must have been obvious to the reader. The gloss affirmed that a marriage is made between only two individuals, and thus polygamy is an abberation....The significant point, as far as the Gospel text [Matthew 19] is concerned, is that this variant text is used very self-consciously, with the additional comment [Matthew 19:5] 'So they are no longer two but one' emphasizing the presence of the word 'two.'...Both [the gospel of] Mark and the Damascus Document [a document critical of polygamy] cite exactly the same portion of Genesis 1:27, and they both precede the quotation with a very similar phrase. Mark refers to 'the beginning of creation'...while the Damascus Document used the phrase 'the foundation of creation'...they are semantically identical....Jesus was making the point very strongly. He was saying not only that polygamy was immoral but that it was illegal. He gave scriptural proofs that polygamy was against God's will. This meant that the man's second marriage was invalid, and thus he was cohabiting with an unmarried woman."  pp. 61, 137-138, 151)

 

 

 

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=david-instone-brewer

Edited December 3, 2013 by Abulafia

[Hannah Rebekah]

Thanks Abulafia,

I'm really not so much trying to find justification for polygamy or polyandry as neither one bother me so much. I think there are a lot of things that we won't understand while in this life but I do find some of these subjects very fascinating. As with anything in history there are so many gaps that will never be filled but who doesn't like a good mystery and tracking things down for a better understanding? What were they doing and why...well those are the questions that are intriguing. I fully believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and a very important one and I have polygamous ancestors.

The pdf link you gave sounds like a good read.

Thanks....

[Abulafia]

Well, from an early Christian perspective, it's a very interesting subject.

One of the texts that I feel personally uncomfortable with, but is there all the same, is the passage in Mark and also Matthew, on Jesus's attitude to marriage in response to the sadducees (a group who didn't believe in the resurrection).


 

Mark 12.

23 Therefore, in the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife.”24 Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?[c] 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.”

 

This passage refers to a woman (consecutively) having more than one husband, and it prompts quite a strong response in the text.

So, what can be implied, perhaps, is that for the writers of Mark and Matthew and their respective communities, a marriage relationship wasn't one that would be seen as effectual after death.

This seems to fit well with other passages that refer (which I am also uncomfortable with) that once one is within the "kingdom" one has a new family.

Not only that but Matthew's community has Jesus saying (in Chapter 19)
 

12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

 

Just as there were eunuchs for earthly kingdoms, designed to protect and administer to the women (see OT for various examples) there appears to be eunuchs who choose to devote themselves to children of the kingdom rather than having any of their own.

These are the strands that we do have evidence for, and that they were given authority by many of the early Christian communities is indicated by the prevalence of celibacy as honoured, whilst at the same time gradually giving more emphasis to family relationships as the movement spread through the gentile world, where monogamy tended to be the norm (Greek and Roman society) and where a belief in the continuation of filial relationships was adhered to.

Hannah I take your point about gaps in knowledge, but surely we can only surmise from the best evidence that we do have.

I do think that endeavoring to find the root of Joseph's belief towards polygamy and polyandry is a worthy pursuit. He was radically reinterpreting current dogma and practice. One could argue that Jesus was doing the same in many of the passages that seem to be put in his mouth within the gospels. He wasn't a Sadducee, he wasn't a Pharisee, he wasn't an Essene and he wasn't a zealot. He is portrayed as quite unique.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Abulafia

[juliann]

 

Interestingly Jesus is quoted by both Mark, and the (more Jewish) Matthew as setting monogamy as the standard form of marriage.

 

 

What is interesting is that Jesus here is portrayed as referring to a scripture in Genesis which includes a gloss that changes the text to a monogamous relationship, suggesting that he is anti-polygamy.   Those at Qumran did the same I believe as did Paul in his genuine letters.

Now that would be worth developing to get rid of the idea that monogamy is the aberration rather than polygamy.

[Abulafia]

Now that would be worth developing to get rid of the idea that monogamy is the aberration rather than polygamy.

 

I'm reading a book recommended by my tutor at the moment called 'The Origins of Christianity - An Exploration' by Etienne Nodet and Justin Taylor. 

They are concentrating on Galilee on the assumption that Galilee was actually quite different culturally, economically and religiously from the Southern Kingdom (Jerusalem and area).

I am coming to see just how useful it is to understand Jesus within a Galilean context.  

[juliann]

Good stuff, A.  Thanks.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Abulafia,

So true about how we can only surmise from the best evidence. It's all very interesting.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Now that would be worth developing to get rid of the idea that monogamy is the aberration rather than polygamy.

 

Juliann,

I had read somewhere that polygamy was God's form of welfare. Not to get political but if a society collapses for whatever reason I can see how a polygamous system could be the answer to answer the ills in any era of time.

[Tacenda]

Juliann,

I had read somewhere that polygamy was God's form of welfare. Not to get political but if a society collapses for whatever reason I can see how a polygamous system could be the answer to answer the ills in any era of time.

Why marry? Just help them out. What is unfortunate, is when JS takes others wives, in the name of God or as a prophet of God. I don't believe it to be a commandment anywhere to do that.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Why marry? Just help them out. What is unfortunate, is when JS takes others wives, in the name of God or as a prophet of God. I don't believe it to be a commandment anywhere to do that.

 

Hummm...sorta like there wasn't a commandment anywhere for Abraham to kill his son, well...at least not until the time that God commanded him to do so to see if he would do all that he had been commanded.

[mercyngrace]

Hummm...sorta like there wasn't a commandment anywhere for Abraham to kill his son, well...at least not until the time that God commanded him to do so to see if he would do all that he had been commanded.

 

Apples and oranges. 

 

God may have tested Abraham but He did not allow the contradictory command to be fulfilled.  In no way can this be compared to plural marriages which were consummated, whether spiritually or physically in contradiction of the explicitly stated law of one wife. 

 

Unless, of course, you meant to imply that God was testing the early saints and they failed the test.

[juliann]

Juliann,

I had read somewhere that polygamy was God's form of welfare. Not to get political but if a society collapses for whatever reason I can see how a polygamous system could be the answer to answer the ills in any era of time.

 I'm trying to figure out how women who can make as much money or more than a man would need a welfare system, let alone one that divides their assets with other women and children.   Unless you mean that the man needs the welfare. 

[mercyngrace]

Not to entirely derail the thread but since the binding was invoked, I'll link to what I consider a very interesting write up about the incident. 

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-05/features/sns-201204031400--tms--godsqudctngs-a20120405apr05_1_abraham-hagar-god

[Hannah Rebekah]

 I'm trying to figure out how women who can make as much money or more than a man would need a welfare system, let alone one that divides their assets with other women and children.   Unless you mean that the man needs the welfare. 

 

Juliann,

Think in terms of who really needs welfare. I know that's hard now when so many people who don't need it are getting it. Welfare was meant to be a safety net for those times when someone couldn't make money for whatever reason, because sickness or injury, old age and no they had no assets.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Apples and oranges. 

 

God may have tested Abraham but He did not allow the contradictory command to be fulfilled.  In no way can this be compared to plural marriages which were consummated, whether spiritually or physically in contradiction of the explicitly stated law of one wife. 

 

Unless, of course, you meant to imply that God was testing the early saints and they failed the test.

 

Really???

No comparison to when God commanded the Israelites, "Thou shall not murder" then several pages later in the Bible we are told that God commanded them that they "shalt utterly destroy????

[Abulafia]

Really???

No comparison to when God commanded the Israelites, "Thou shall not murder" then several pages later in the Bible we are told that God commanded them that they "shalt utterly destroy????

Hannah, okay, how about a standpoint that sees scripture as man's flawed attempts to access the Divine? That way it can be seen as writings written (usually) by men and influenced by how they saw their place in the universe. Do we really believe that Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a whale? Or is it a story designed to teach a moral? Same for Adam and Eve and for Noah, all of which have parallels found in Mesopotamian myths that as far as I am aware, predated bible accounts. Edited December 7, 2013 by Abulafia

[mercyngrace]

Really???

No comparison to when God commanded the Israelites, "Thou shall not murder" then several pages later in the Bible we are told that God commanded them that they "shalt utterly destroy????

 

1. Thou "shalt utterly destroy" is not from the account of the binding, at least not in my KJV. 

 

2. Getting back to Genesis 22, there is some indication that Abraham knew God would terminate the test without terminating Isaac as he said "God will provide us a lamb". Paul's interpretation seems to be that Isaac would be resurrected if his life was taken. If God did not revoke the command to take other men's wives or provide an exit strategy, then "really???" plural marriage doesn't fit the pattern of the binding. 

 

3. See Abulafia's post directly above mine. The literal reading of the Bible, especially the Old Testament may very well be the flawed invention of the Western mind. Hebrew writers and storytellers simply did not record these accounts for historical accuracy, they recorded them to convey messages embedded in the use of numbers, symbols, names, etc. I would be as hesitant to define God's nature with a literal reading of the accounts of the Old Testament as I would to teach the physiology of a rabbit from a reading Joel Chandler Harris. 

[volgadon]

 

2. Getting back to Genesis 22, there is some indication that Abraham knew God would terminate the test without terminating Isaac as he said "God will provide us a lamb". Paul's interpretation seems to be that Isaac would be resurrected if his life was taken. If God did not revoke the command to take other men's wives or provide an exit strategy, then "really???" plural marriage doesn't fit the pattern of the binding. 

 

3. See Abulafia's post directly above mine. The literal reading of the Bible, especially the Old Testament may very well be the flawed invention of the Western mind. Hebrew writers and storytellers simply did not record these accounts for historical accuracy, they recorded them to convey messages embedded in the use of numbers, symbols, names, etc. I would be as hesitant to define God's nature with a literal reading of the accounts of the Old Testament as I would to teach the physiology of a rabbit from a reading Joel Chandler Harris. 

 

I dunno, I can't really see #2 as much more than Abraham allaying his son's suspicions. Was he more correct than he himself even knew, yes, but that is another issue. I also think that latter-day polygyny in many cases did fit the pattern of the binding, or rather its legacy, but I agree that it isn't a straight-forward reading. Perhaps for a different topic?

As far as #3 goes, I would hesitate to completely discard literal readings. OTOH, we do need to adopt more flexibility in reading things like symbols, numbers, etc.